2020 (6) TMI 225 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - time limitation - appellant filed refund claim on 31.03.2017 and the same was rejected by both the authorities below as time barred - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that initially the refund claim was filed on 29.09.2008 and the same had been decided in favour of the appellant vide order dt. 16.03.2016 by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), therefore the appellant was not required to file the refund claim again. The understanding of the learned A.R. that the appellant was required to file the refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 after the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is against the provisions of law and both the authorities below are required to entertain the refund claim dt. 29.09.2008 and instead of considering the same, the adjudicating authority did not comply order dt. 16.03.2016 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant inadvertently on 31.03.2017 as time barred, which is not permissible in law. There is no merit in the impugned order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against dismissal of refund claim as time-barred.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim for Cenvat credit after exporting services for the period of October-December 2007. The claim was partly rejected, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it on 16.03.2016. Subsequently, the appellant filed another refund claim on 31.03.2017, which was rejected as time-barred by both authorities. The appellant argued that the second claim was filed inadvertently due to the failure of the Revenue to automatically sanction the refund claim after the Commissioner's order. The Revenue contended that the second claim was late as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Upon review, it was found that the initial refund claim was filed in 2008 and had been decided in favor of the appellant in 2016 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant was not required to file a new claim after the favorable decision. The argument that Section 11B required a new claim post the Commissioner's order was deemed incorrect. The authorities were supposed to entertain the original claim but erroneously rejected the 2017 claim as time-barred, which was not permissible.

Following the Commissioner's order in 2016, the refund claim should have been sanctioned within three months. However, the delay occurred as the authorities did not act promptly despite accepting the Commissioner's decision. The appellant's request for interest due to the delay was noted, and the issue of interest was to be addressed separately by the authorities.

Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the authorities were directed to comply with the Commissioner's order within 15 days. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.